Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

HeavensBlade23 writes in to let us know that Wikileaks has published a US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual, titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004). "The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine. It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."

Our commander in chief said as much in a videoconference with troops in Afghanistan on Mar 13, 2008:( http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1333111120080313 [reuters.com] )..."I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

"It must be exciting for you... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said....

War is ugly... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916 and 1942.

The problem is that to the local populace all the United States and allies did was replace "Oppressive Bad Guy 1" with "Oppressive so called democatic puppet regime of Democracy 1"
The local populace are still oppressed, they are still murdered and humiliated by various local and nonlocal groups including Al Qaeda and US armed forces.
So for whom is this so called freedom worth the price?
The difference between the current situation and the WW's are that in the WW's the US helped to liberate conquered nations where the populace was against their conquerors, in the current situation they are seen as the conquerors.

WWI began in 1914, but America didn't get there till April of 1917 (oh yea, and it ended in November of 1918. Of the ~10 million deaths, and 13 million wounded, America's contribution stands at approximately 1% (117k killed, 205k wounded).

Cripes, Canada, with a population about 1/12th of the United States at that time, suffered HALF as many casualties (67k killed, 150k wounded)! By proportion to overall population, Canada contributed approximately 24x as much as the USA!

World War II began in 1939. The Battle of Britian was fought in 1940. The Americans, after A LOT of wembling about "other peoples' problems", finally joined the war in December of 1941 (having essentially sat-out half of the conflict).

The Shah of Iran was an American-backed dictator who essentially pillaged Iran and stayed in power by virtue of the CIA.

Similiarly, Saddam Hussein was enabled by support from the American military-industrial complex, as well as the CIA and the DoD. They armed him, paid him, and supported him because he was happy to throw hapless Iraqis lives at Iran on behalf of the ole' US-of-A.

Given these things, I'm having trouble finding a basis for the self-righteous tone of your message (other than just being completely blind to history, and having swallowed the current propaganda hook-line-and-sinker...)

Cripes, Canada, with a population about 1/12th of the United States at that time, suffered HALF as many casualties (67k killed, 150k wounded)! By proportion to overall population, Canada contributed approximately 24x as much as the USA!

So the only way to contribute to the war effort is to sustain casualties? By that logic I guess that Yugoslavia contributed more during WW2 than the US or UK?

World War II began in 1939. The Battle of Britian was fought in 1940. The Americans, after A LOT of wembling about "other peoples' problems", finally joined the war in December of 1941 (having essentially sat-out half of the conflict).

You might want to consider reading some history before you bemoan how the United States "sat out" the first half of WW2. Even if the American people were inclined to get involved (they weren't) the United States didn't really have much of a military to speak of in those years. The only branch of the American armed forces that was remotely ready for war was the US Navy. The US Army and Army Air Corps were a joke and meaningful American intervention simply wasn't possible until late 1942/early 1943.

FDR did what he could with the cards that he held -- he sent arms to the Allies (a blatant violation of the concept of neutrality), attempted to keep Japanese aggression in check and ordered the US Navy to escort conveys in the Atlantic and to sink u-boats on sight -- months before we were formally at war with Nazi Germany.

"War is ugly... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916"

A war between the Houses Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Osman against Houses Romanov and Windsor. Yay, freedom.

If we had kicked back, relaxed and let these statist colonial empires melt down further, the cause of "freedom" would have been a lot better off, rather than letting the winners hang on to their colonies and in fact colonize the territories of the losers. Probably could have avoided the next war altogether.

Sorry to pop all your bubbles, but that Counterinsurgency Manual is publically available. I bought an offical copy from Amazon many months ago. There's nothing secret in the book and those "warrantless searches" are done on the battlefield overseas, not in this country. The whole article is alarmist tripe.

The other problem I have with wikileaks in general is that there's no way to know anything posted there is authentic.

For all you know, some guy at IP address www.xxx.yyy.zzz is posting some creative writing, propaganda, defamatory stories, whatever.

The original story on slashdot is pretty biased to begin with: warrantless searches, habeas corpus, detainment without charge? They're military units at war in a foreign land - they're not the local police department, they're not there to serve & protect the interests of the locals, but the interests of the USA - or more accurately, its commander in chief.

War is hell, and military is an instrument of war. It's amazing that people get prissy about an organization whose purpose is to kill and destroy until a government or people is either destroyed or decides it's better off agreeing with the terms for peace.

You shouldn't get mad at a lion for eating your child on main street USA; the lion is merely doing what lions do. It is far more sensible to go after the person(s) who released the lion into a city.

Well, to be fair, the particular manual WikiLeaks posted was restricted on 5 DEC 2003 to Army personnel only. So, while it's not classified, it's not generally meant for public consumption. That doesn't mean you can't find it with a little searching.

What is currently available on Amazon's website is the Operational Techniques (link [amazon.com]) Manual. This is more of a "what sf does" type of book. The WikiLeaks article links to a TTP which is like a "HOW TO" manual. And in reality, while it's no secret what SF or any other type of Army unit does, specific TTP are sensitive because they have pretty specific guidelines and checklists on how certain tasks are accomplished.

They're not classified, but they're also not something an Army unit would necessarily want widely distributed.

Oh, and for people complaining about the format of the manual - this is what Army manuals look like. They have lousy formatting, and it's pretty common to find typos and other errors.

WikiLeaks didn't really scoop anything, so it's not some sort of coup.

amen.The ludicous screed that heads the article might be considered a parody of itself. The manual that then follows is no worse than say Machievelli's "The Prince". or more apropos Sun Tzu "the art of war".

Armies are SUpposed to plan and supposed to control populations effectively, ideally inflicting the the least damage possible. Like Jujitsu, it's about knowing the pressure points to move the whole body.

Fuck, it's their freakin' job.

Folks it's not immoral to plan for war. it may be immoral to go to war, but in the USA that's a civil sector choice not a military choice.

On a similar tack. I't not immoral to equip our soldiers with the best weapons possible. If the Country decides through its political leadership to put soldiers in harms way then they should be equipt to be as effective as they possibly can. The immorailty of war comes when politicians send us to war or waste our treasure on unneccessary weapons.

There's also a famous quote from a WWI British officer named Julian Grenfell:

"I adore war. It's like a big picnic without the objectlessness of a picnic. I've never been so well or happy. No one grumbles at one for being dirty."...
Julian Grenfell's picnic was soon over. He died from wounds on April 30th, 1915. He was 27 years old.

I got the quote from here [greatwar.nl], which is a great WWI web-site.

Please cite your references, because I'm not sure you're possessed of the "ounce of intelligence" that you're referring to...

The United States was meddling with internal affairs via the CIA pretty much from WW2 on. They installed and supported the "pro west" Shah of Iran, whose whoring of his country and people lead to the rise of the ayatollah's and the extremist element in that country.

They then gave Saddam Hussein their support in order that he should stand agains the "New" Iran, and then people from both of those countries got to experience the meat-grinder that is American Foreign Policy in the Middle East. They also didn't seem to care if he oppressed his own people, by whatever means, although after decades of his abuses, they then supported a Kurdish insurgency, but cut-off support to them just in time to let Saddam obliterate them.

Later they sent money, guns and tactical support to the Afghan rebels in order to help them overthrown the Russians, but then cut them loose to "wither on the vine" once the Russians left.

The Americans support repressive regimes in Kuwait, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. They also supported Isreal against Palistinians who've become the Middle-Eastern gypsies as a result.

This is the record of American influence in this region, as ever with Americans, it's a story of doing whatever it takes to advance their interests, without thought, care or regard for how much it'll fuck-up anyone else... That's the basis for the resentment, anger and hatred the people of these regions have for Americans, and that's the environment that's "breeding terrorists". So please, PLEASE cite your references that this area was a Terrorist Breeding-ground "before America got involved"!

-AC

PS: I'm an atheist, and Canadian. I am NOT an Islamo-fascist, and I have no particular sympathies for any of the peoples I've described. I have no hidden agenda. I'm simply pointing out that a LOT of the troubles America is experiencing in the world right now can be seen as karmic chickens coming home to roost.

They also supported Isreal against Palistinians who've become the Middle-Eastern gypsies as a result.

Dude, you need to read a bit of history beyond the past 60 years [wikipedia.org]. The Palestinian people were Middle-Eastern gypsies loooong before modern Israel ever got there. They've been a stateless socio-ethnic group for nearly a thousand years. It was the (imperialist) British who first brought up the idea of a Palestine in the 1920s. The other Arab states simply didn't give a damn, at least not until Israel got plopped in their midst and suddenly the Palestinians became a good reason for opposing Israel.

The Kurds (in Turkey/Syria/Iraq/Iran) are in a similar position with a greater population and an even longer ethnic history, only they're not anywhere near Israel. The other Arab states aren't exactly falling over each other trying to create a Kurdistan.

Bullshit. It's about belief, not provable fact. By your definition, everyone would have to be an agnostic since neither the believers nor the non-believers can provide proof of existence or non-existence of god.

"While I somehow doubt you are a 'Conservative Republican', you do realize the document was written in 1994? Just like Bush 'faked' the Iraq WMD stuff in 1998, two years before he was elected so Congress would pass the Iraq Liberation Act, now he's being blamed for a 1994 (purported) anti-terrorism manual?
You libs are too much."

While i agree tying this document directly to Bush's foreign policy is a non-starter, I have to counter your claim re: WMD. Between Hans Blix's investigations in Iraq (inconclusive at best) and the CIA's complete refute of the Nigerian uranium story, W Bush's Iraq policy was based on false evidence used to mislead supporters.

In fact he and Cheney's "office of special plans" did exactly that: they blocked information that was not favorable to war, provided 'intelligence' from expatriots that was nothing more than lies and wishful thinking, provided 'intelligence' from torture victims that was worthless... and engineered the whole thing with only war in mind.

"What was important was the Saddam comply with inspectors which he did not do"

Dude you live in a fantasy world. The inspectors were in the process of inspection when they were driven out by the comming war. In addition, the UN 'resolution' fig leaf under which we went to war called for all countries to provide information the inspectors could use to locate the WMD. All the while the inspections were going on, Rumsfeld and others kept saying "we know where the weapons are" but refused to provide this information to the inspectors. This placed the US in violation of the resolution. It's easy to understand why we didn't provide this information: when inspection proved it wrong it would have made it a lot harder to justify why were going to war.

I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?

We wag our fingers at China for their actions in Tibet, but by any measure what they have done there is far more humane than what we have done in Iraq. We lecture Russia about corruption and they simply retort with examples of western corruption.

Who actually believes that our governments have any reason to exist anymore beyond their existence itself?

Otherwise I couldn't agree more, it just sems to be a bunch of rich, cantankerous old killjoys at the top of each country, making up reasons to kill people that are under the influence of another bunch of rich old bastards.

Oh yeah, arming one group of people and giving them a monopoly on violence is the solution to interpersonal conflict.

Well, Hobbes used to say that the advantage of governments isn't that violence itself ceases to exist, just that it switches level. Or, to be more precise, that outside a state you have violence at a personal level, with people shotting each other in the streets as the only way of being sure they won't be the next killed is by being the next killers, while with states, although you still have violence among them, at least people living inside them get some measure of peaceful coexistence. The difference, thus, isn't one of "good" versus "evil", but rather one of "bad" versus "worse".

As a result of this reasoning, his take on the subject was that, for people to be able to accomplish anything better than having to live in an eternal struggle for today's food (where anyone can come and take from you what you made, no one bothers to produce anything, much less any surplus), the very first thing they need is a state strong enough to both make other states afraid of messing with them and to make the people under its umbrella afraid of messing with each other. Once you have this established, no matter how (and at this point a totalitarian tyranny is okay for him), you have peace enough for surplus production to develop. And once you have a functional society, then you can start pursuing other goals, such as, say, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, democracy, individual rights etc. (which, contrary to common belief, he pretty much preferred).

So, yes, arming one group of people and giving them a monopoly on violence is indeed the solution to interpersonal conflict. Even if it leads, in the worst case scenario, to the monopolist becoming an absolute totalitarian hereditary monarch and everyone else becoming his personal slaves, as in this case interpersonal conflicts are also few. But, and this is important, it's a solution only to interpersonal conflicts. Everything else requires, of course, much more than this.

A monopoly in violence, thus, is just the very first step required in solving human problems, as it solves our very first problem. But it's never the solution to all of our problems.

No point mistaking bad intelligence and unquestioning politicians for malice.

Ok, as you are speaking of Australia, this may not apply to you. After all, I could see the government of Australia accepting intelligence from their ally the United States in good faith. However, citizens of the United States, you should understand that there is a difference between cooked intelligence and bad intelligence.

Bad intelligence is when Achmed is giving you information, but he is actually secretly working for the Taliban. Cooked intelligence is when there is no Achmed, and the information you supposedly got from him was actually created by the Office of Special Plans [guardian.co.uk] out of whole cloth. Basically, black propaganda aimed at your own populace.

Bad intellegence can be incompetence (or it can just mean the other side is better than you), but cooked intelligence is definitely malice.

Why does the layout make the government stupid? It looks very much like any corporate document, and the military will be using corporate methods for some processes within the military these days. They will definately have access to the same software as the corporate world have too.

And WWII pilot briefing documents are nearly 60 years old. Do they look real because they weren't word processed?

And this document isn't aimed at modern pilots.... its for special forces and occupiers - people with a very different role in the military. From skimming through the document, it covers methods and tactics employed since world war II. You don't appear to have compared like with like.

I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but it's obvious you don't really know too much about Islam with the way you've selected and interpreted those passages. If you've read the entire Koran and the Hadiths and gotten the message "lying is good!", then I'm sorry, but I don't think I can cure that kind of stupid.

Oh, and could you please verify the authority of your translation? Because no Muslim would accept a non-Arabic version of the Koran or the Hadith as authorative, since so much is lost in translation. Arabic is a notoriously difficult language to translate due to the complexity of the ideas contained in many of the words. But you know that, of course, as I'm sure you've read Islamic holy documents in their original language, right?

But wait! Maybe you haven't. "Islam" = military domination in Arabic? Wow, never knew that. Astasalama? What the hell are you talking about, is this some kind of blend of "ma salama" ("go with peace") and "hasta la vista"? Seriously man, if you're going to be a critic of Islam from primary texts, at least learn the language.

No, sir, Islam isn't what needs to be destroyed in order to stop terror. It's intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry from people like YOU (whether in Iraq, America, or elsewhere) that has to die to stop terror.

"I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility"Talk to the average north american, and you'll find out that there are many that would rank you with steretype of the crzzy-type 'conspiracy theorists'.

This is just more example of fascism plain and simple, when business tools government for it's own interests.

I have been skimming the PDF, it is scarily like what they are doing in the US. while skimming, I found this gem:

But I was intrigued by the use of the world 'peasant'. I figured that it was a term that only made sense in a feudal system - so like the proper netizen that I am, I toddled off to Wikipedia to clarify my thoughts.

I got no further than the first line:Not to be confused with pheasants.

ROFL! What's that, a guideline for the upper classes when on a shooting party!

Look at their record in office and compare to any US president of any era--Bush, Carter, Ford, Coolidge, Harding, whatever. The level of violence, corruption, intimidation, whatever aren't even in the same league.

I know it is cool to be all downtrodden, but really: get out of the dorm and get a sense of perspective. You have it orders of magnitude better than anyone who ever lived under those governments. On his worst day, chimp boy is better than any government in any developing country on their best day...expects to be modded down for disagreeing with the waah! America sucks! groupthing.

Facism? Every western government has some sort of Special Operations system in place with all the same provisions. I think it is more telling that the slashdot crowd is just now "discovering" what has been known about black operations since the beginning of time.

"Also, doesn't anyone else find it ironic that those folks are supposed to be fighting for freedom and the American way?"

I didn't realize that censorship, surveillance, union busting, and silencing political parties had become un-American; let me pull out the champagne, this calls for a celebration. Our government has been slowly but steadily stepping it up on all of the above fronts, but in countries like Iraq they just happen to have an advantage: there is no existing legal framework standing in the way, so they are free to re-create society in a manner that suits them.

I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?

An insightful comment if ever I read one.

Also worth pointing out this gives lie to the "They hate us for our freedom" rubbish repeatedly heard from our leaders when conflicts and violence occur in unfamiliar parts of the world. The really sad thing is that any student of American history could say this is a non-story.

The sad thing is that huge swathes of this read as if they were redacted to fit an ideology, not truly written based on pragmatic achieving of a goal. It's all about doing the "dirty work" that the chairborne rangers with their neckties and air-conditioned offices dream about.

I am going to read this in more detail, but right now it depresses me that counterinsurgency tactics have fallen so deeply into doing the "glamourous", "badass" stuff and ignoring the repercussions. Current lack of success in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been a wake-up call to how important treating the locals is, how accepting moral limits can reap tactical benefits later on.

Hi,This is a common mistake made by many Americans, but please remember that Canada is not actually one of your states. You see we're an independent nation. If you need help finding us on a map its that really big spot above you where you get your maple syrup and you used to get cheap shopping. Since we're laterally north of you, we're also a "western government". Unless you're specifically talking about Alaska, then I suppose it is more west than us.. This was a US special force book. I don't believe it wa

Who actually believes that our governments have any reason to exist anymore beyond their existence itself?

"We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."Any resemblance is purely coincidental.

It's a terrible tragedy that such a foolhardy strategy has been embraced by our current adminstration. The simple fact is that the garbage advocated in this 'doctrinal' guide is not counter-terrorism, it's merely counter-productive. You can leave aside the entire philosophical argument for fighting fire with water instead of with fire, leading by example, winning over others through cooperation and conversation rather than conflict and so on, and instead simply crunch the numbers: we could save far more American lives for far less money with a War on Drunk Driving or a War on Idiots Driving While Talking On The Phone than we ever will with the War on Terror, to pick just two examples off the top of my head.

We lost 3000 souls on 9/11. Yet we've lost nearly 5000 in Iraq. Meanwhile, we steadily lose 50,000/year to drunk driving, another several thousand to those fools driving while talking on their phones. The numbers simply don't support a War on Terror no matter how you juggle them. This war of abstraction is, in fact, a Campaign of Terror to frighten our citizenry into submission in order keep the current military-industrial complex in power. It is as shameless as it is sickening, and the perpetrators leading the charade should be behind bars instead of in the White House.

Exactly. The west is perfectly happy with him when we help [wikipedia.org] him to [wikipedia.org] power [wikipedia.org] because "our enemy's enemy is our friend", but once he does his own thing then he's some evil who should be destroyed, conveniently ignoring the history of how he got there.

I can see why it might be a shock to some that this document got out, but given that it's for Special Forces then it doesn't really surprise me. Why have your elite forces actually playing by the book when you can fight dirty, be more effective and just blank over it if you're ever asked? That's not to say I condone it, just that it seems like an obvious military tactic when you're working in smaller and elite teams.

Hence the support provided to him in his war against Iran. FFS he was using chemical weapons with impunity - then he wanders into Kuwait and becomes a 'bad' person. Now we seem to have decided Iran is 'bad' again, but we've removed the hostile neighbour we were supporting... but we can't wander into Iran ourselves.. but..Oh you just cannot take this stuff seriously any more.

Uh... yes? When you fight a war, you need to fight to win it. Otherwise, you get into a situation like Vietnam where the people on the ground don't know what they're supposed to be doing and just end up getting killed. Similarly, you shouldn't be sending soldiers into a situation where you should have police. Police and soldiers aren't the same thing.

Now, there *are* options that typically aren't on the table like nuclear weapons and chemical agents, but other than that, yeah... fight to win, otherwise, you're just wasting lives.

The problem is that we should never go to war to bring people freedom. No one is going to like it. When you do need to go to war, the only strategy of war that should ever be waged is total war. The only way success in war can actually be achieved is by the complete submission of the enemy population (which also includes those not hostile). It's ugly and messy, but that's war. The idea that we're going to "bring freedom" to a region that is so hostile towards us is rediculous.

These things mentioned are unpalatable but then again - so is war. Moral of the story - avoid it. But sometimes you will have to fight, and when you do, fight hard and fight to win.

There are a few details in the way of your plan. Mostly treaties (such as the Geneva Convention) to which the USA is signatory, but there are still a few laws passed by Congress that also apply, depending on how creative you want to be with your redefinition of terms.

The USA has spent a good bit of the last century telling the world that "the ends justifies the means" is not carte blanche to those with power. If there's going to be a change of policy, perhaps abrogating those treaties would be a good start.

He truly was the first modern general. Right before he kicked everyone out of the town and burned Atlanta, he also said, "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it . . . But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter." Sherman hated newspaper reporters too, and wanted to have them all hanged a

If this was a CIA manual noone would lift an eyebrow, but this is apparently a field manual for an Army unit. But I keep forgetting, unless you are an american citizen you lack rights in the eyes of Uncle Sam. Sad, really.

Special Forces are trained to work behind enemy lines in war to destabilize the government and cause as much damage as possible to the enemy's war effort. Since when have the niceties of the US constitution applied to an enemy, in war, in the enemy's territory?
Regardless, war is uncivilized. Anyone that thinks otherwise should do some research. If you try to apply peacetime's morals to a war zone you're just going to lose a lot of lives and accomplish nothing.

Sun-Tzu's book was in many ways similar, explaining how to conduct war, but the difference seems to be that 2,500 years ago in China there was no pretense of democratic government, and perhaps also the tactics described in that book were more successful.

The cynicism of this counterinsurgency manual, and willingness to use ordinary people as material for war, is quite stunning.

The cynicism of this counterinsurgency manual, and willingness to use ordinary people as material for war, is quite stunning.

Such cynicism is necessary, though, for the greater good of the country. The terrorists from the Middle East want to kill all Americans. Why? Because of something our government did decades ago, because something a corporation did, because you aren't a muslim, because you the devil! The mere fact of being a terrorist means a lack of respect for human dignity and right to life, and thus sometimes, tactics that seem wrought with constitutional issues will be used and condoned by groups who don't want you to know what tactics are being used to keep YOU safe.

War is about imposing YOUR will on your enemy. If you read von Clausewitz, or Sun Tsu, you will find nothing but a ringing endorsement of the techniques described in your indignant lead in.

Even beyond the observation that the manual describes nothing but techniques used in war since the dawn of time, I'll observe that it is the insurgents who cynically hide behind an unarmed populace. They make the fundamental decision to deliberately cause civilian casualties when they refuse to abide by the Geneva Convention and fight in uniform, away from civilian population centers.

A uniformed military must counter the insurgents in some way; would you prefer that we burn down the house to kill the bed bugs? What do you suggest? Asking the insurgents nicely to go home? Take a long hard look at places like Somalia or the disaster in Bosnia and then tell me there are realistic options other than the judicious application of force.

Then what are your feelings about the French and Polish resistances during WWII - they had no uniforms, "hid" among the populace, etc. Now their countries had no armies or real government, but neither does Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'm not saying that Iraqi insurgents are anything like the French Resistance, but explain to me how you would draw the line justifying what happened in WWII and what's going on now.

As far as I can tell, it's simply whoever survives and tells their story that becomes the hero.

MMMM. Good points, King George. Have you ever heard of someone named George Washington? I think he was rather successful in fighting a war without using Sun Tsu or Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Nietsche, or any of the other instinctual morons with no sense of Grace. Washington wasn't particularly nice, attacking drunken soldiers on Christmas eve, but he did maintain his principles, which is important in a long war or occupation. The insurgents have a principle: foreigners out. What principle do we have? No lab

The manual is probably for situation where the world (and the press) might be watching you. If that isn't the case, you can whip out the really effective counterinsurgency measures (purges, ethnic cleansing, random killings to keep people afraid, retribution quotas, death camps, etc).

Insurgencies/counterinsurgencies are a fight over the support of a population. The notion, which is implied in the summary, that wars can be fought in an environment devoid of the infrastructure of law and order with an attention to civil niceties that peacetime domestic civilian police forces can't live up to is ridiculous. The population will realize that your side is hamstringing itself while the other side has no such qualms and choose sides accordingly. That is what happened in Iraq for the first year or so of the Iraq insurgency - domestic Sunni and foreign jihadist groups terrorized the population whenever the American flag wasn't around, while the American occupation went around promising new water plants and soccer parks. No wonder the American intelligence gathering efforts were so effective back then - new soccer park vs. we will kill you and every member of your family if you cooperate.

As the above have pointed out, the manual is for SF units behind enemy lines. The emphasis however, is on "enemy". Cause last I checked, Bosnia had not actually declared war on US. Nor Cuba. Nor Vietnam. etc.

So this is not quite "war". This is "we don't like you, so we'll send our guys to blow up your infrastructure". When we do it to "them", we're aiding democracy. When 'they' do it to 'us', it's called terrorism.

Fellows, I'm all for cynicism in war. Most people really don't get the extremes that become routine in real war. But I repeat - this manual will never actually be used in "war". It'll be used against whoever Uncle Sam says is the "enemy"; I think we all know how well that's worked out. (cf Saddam in 1983 vs. 1991, Shah of Iran in 1953 vs 1971, etc..)

And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable.

Chapter 3: Getting The Locals On Your Side

Honestly, WTF would you think would be in an operations manual? This is standard stuff for every army in the world. I mean, warrantless searches? My mind boggles that anyone would ever suspect otherwise.

Seriously how do people get surprised by this stuff? And no I do not mean the whole, "well the government is a bunch of criminals" mentality that has been dominating every thread like this. I mean WAR, plain and simple, is nasty business. Tactics such as those discussed in this manual have been in the playbook of armed combat since the dawn of war. Anyone who doubts that really needs to go pick up some history books. Hell that sounds just like the Roman Legions best practices guide to me. People need to get over the fact that war is dirty business period. This manual doesn't even warrant news. Before I get flamed, no I am not being cynical or being a war monger, just stating the obvious.

I liked the part environmental impact. Now remember boys and girls after violating international law and illegally foreign civilians clean up your messes. That is American morality in a nutshell focus on the trivial and utterly miss the big picture. And I say that as both an American citizen and environmentalist, but also above all a humanist.

The manual, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004), may be critically described as "what we learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places". Its contents are both history defining for Latin America and, given the continued role of US Special Forces in the suppression of insurgencies, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, history making.

This has nothing to do with "war is war". These are tactics for keeping a corrupt government in place by killing, torturing and otherwise terrorizing any opposition (this includes legitimate, non-violent opposition, labor unions, etc) and the general population. This was applied in places like el Salvador or Nicaragua, and please remember that THE US WERE NOT AT WAR WITH THESE COUNTRIES. In fact, there is no war in Iraq either, right? Mission accomplished...

I've scanned the comments, and after reading the respoonses from my countrymen I amd ashamed and appalled.

There was an item on the radio in the news today that the Gitmo prisoners are suffering from TSS and show evidence of torture. When will Americans wake up and demand accountability? Like excellence, mediocrity and criminality come from the top.

Bush, Cheney, the Secretary of "defense", and a whole lot of other people need to be tried and convicted of war crimes. The actions of my government are past shameful.

We deserve the vitriol hurled at us by the rest of the world. For the first time in my 56 years I'm ashamed to be an American.

Bush and all the people he has appointed should be impeached, tried, found guilty of treason and war crimes, and set in front of a firing squad and shot.

Not even Hirohito damaged my country as much as the current administration.

If you'd all stop and take a breath from your incredulous findings for a moment. Counter-insurgency is what is needed in Iraq AND Afghanistan. The reason we haven't wrapped up both of those regions yet is because of the politicians insisting we approach these conflicts with traditional warfare pieces and making us play by the rule while the enemy has no rules.

Let's pull out 100,000 regular troops in Iraq now and replace them with every last special ops and civil affairs troop we have, and we'll have success within months. But no, the politicians insist we play by antiquated rules because we are a "civil" society. Every time a politician says to pull troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, they instantly lose credibility with anyone who knows anything about how regular troops deploy, and how they are ineffective in the Afghan theater. Keep that in mind this election season. As much as I detest the saying, sometimes the ends really do justify the means. 10 years, trillions of dollars, a few thousand US lives, a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives and years of political instability, or a few months of counter-insurgency operations and a somewhat stable (relative term) governance in place...you decide.

No, but if the overthrow [wikipedia.org] of the popularly elected democratic government [wikipedia.org] in Iran way back when is any indication, it does suggest that you can avoid wars by staying out of other people's business. Put another way, getting out of the habit of pissing people off might get you your own lollipop.

That justifies any position in favor or opposed to anything from now until the end of time. And it automatically makes the other side wrong, regardless of anything -- because nothing they want to do will change what happened 60 years ago. And what if it happens again?

The load? I'm sorry, but between Scientologists and U.S. Special Forces, I'd rather leak Scientology material. Wikileaks just earned legitimate interest from several three-letter agencies. There are going to be spies from many countries trying to find out how Wikileaks got this document (to prevent or encourage more leaks). Some of the countries will be less pleasant in their methods than others and despite the nature of this document, I don't think the U.S. is at the top of that list.

Really, I got the impression we were talking about counter-insurgency?

If an enemy nation invades my home country I'll give carte blance to the armed forces. I'll pick up a tyre iron and attack the invaders with my bare hands.

But that's a far cry from counter-insurgency. I will not condone the armed forces I pay for propping up a foreign despot against insurgents. I especially will not condone the tactics outlined in this document.